Metal_Spirit
Regular
The graph would be overly confusing if it contained in game spend which is option and mixed it with subscriber fees (no optional) and grouped them together as being subscriber revenue. Not saying it couldn’t be that graph, but I can’t see it painting the picture currently.
1.365 million users may or may not be low. Unfortunately without target numbers I do not know. I think it’s pretty successful. They drummed up 600M in revenue with a single initiative annually if we assume they don’t net any more subscribers.
Even accepting your number is correct, i cannot judge the service success. The question is: Who is most interested in a service like this? Those that spend a lot, or those that spend little?
The savings are for those that spend a lot, because those that spend little will have its reasons for that, either lack of time for playing, or just lack of money to spend on gaming.
So, the service may be having big incomes. But the real question is: Compared to when they were out of the service, they are spending more or less?
The study says that on average subscribers spend a lot more than non subscribers. But that seems to be a “La Palice” truth. Since those more atracted to this service are exactly those that spend more, and can save on game costs, reduce the population size from 42 million to 1.365 million and you get an average spending increase.
Those 600 million, if calculated right are just a shift of income from the tradicional market to Gamepass. But the question remaining is. Without game pass those persons would bring more, the same, or less income?
Were we talking about a service without day one game releases, like PSNow, I would not have this doubt about profitability. But here, where the service canibalizes games sales, my doubts stay.
Last edited: